Below are links to recent articles in newspapers and magazines on the future of reading in an e-reader and laptop universe.
Here is Kevin Kelly writing in Smithsonian Magazine on “Reading in a Whole New Way.” The subtitle asks how “the act of reading” will change as people “move from print to pixie.” One observation he makes: `
“But it is not book reading. Or newspaper reading. It is screen reading. Screens are always on, and, unlike with books we never stop staring at them. This new platform is very visual, and it is gradually merging words with moving images: words zip around, they float over images, serving as footnotes or annotations, linking to other words or images. You might think of this new medium as books we watch, or television we read. Screens are also intensely data-driven. Pixels encourage numeracy and produce rivers of numbers flowing into databases. Visualizing data is a new art, and reading charts a new literacy. Screen culture demands fluency in all kinds of symbols, not just letters.”
And here is a story in the Los Angeles Times on how “Electronic Reading Devices Are Transforming the Concept of a Book.” According to reporters Alex Beam and David Sarno:
“As electronic reading devices evolve and proliferate, books are increasingly able to talk to readers, quiz them on their grasp of the material, play videos to illustrate a point or connect them with a community of fellow readers. The same technology allows readers to reach out to authors, provide instant reaction and even become creative collaborators, influencing plot developments and the writer’s use of dramatic devices.”
And here is a story in Science Daily, an important one in the research base just beginning to accumulate on the impact of screens in the home. The headline is “Children with Home Computers Likely to Have Lower Test Scores, Study Finds.” Researchers at Duke University examined home computer access and use in North Carolina and found that efforts to widen Internet access among the population “would actually widen the achievement gap in math and reading scores. Students in grades five through eight, particularly those from disadvantaged families, tend to post lower scores once these technologies arrive in their home.”
Finally, here’s a direct op-ed in the Taipei Times by Dan Bloom entitled “The Pros and Cons of Reading on Screens.” He summarizes some important research on precisely the difference between screen and print reading:
“The process of reading on a screen involves so much physical manipulation of the computer that it interferes with our ability to focus on and appreciate what we are reading;
“Online text moves up and down the screen and lacks a physical dimension, robbing us of a sense of completeness;
“The visual happenings on a computer screen and our physical interaction with the device and its setup can be distracting.
“All of these things tax human cognition and concentration in a way that a book, newspaper or magazine does not.”
15 Responses to E-Reading
danbloom - July 20, 2010 at 12:24 am
Good post, and just one note, well, a few: in the very good LAT feature story last week, the authors quoted Dr Gary Small of UCLA psychiatry dept as saying a key quote: ….Small, director of the Center on Aging at UCLA and author of “iBrain,” said Internet use activated more parts of the brain than reading a book did.On the other hand, online readers often demonstrate what Small calls “continuous partial attention” as they click from one link to the next. The risk is that we become mindless ants following endless crumbs of digital data. MONEY QUOTE: “People tend to ask whether this is good or bad,” Small said. “My response is that the tech train is out of the station, and it’s impossible to stop.”Impossible. To. Stop.My hope is that MRI brain scan studies will come out soon and tell us what we need to know about paper reading vs screen-reading, what I call screening, in terms of if in fact different regions of the brain light up, and two, if these regions are inferior or superior for 1. processing of info2. rentention of info3. analysis of infoIt is my contention, Dr Bauerlein, that reading on screens, which is not really “reading”, but screening, will be shown to be vastly inferior to reading on paper surfaces, via the MRI tests which are being done now in Norway, Boston and Los Angeles. But as Small said, the tech train has already left the station and it cannot be stopped. So even if my hunch is correct, it will be too late. The train has left the station, before the conductors thought of what might happen if they did not fix the braking system first. Oh well, that’s life. Let us all soldier on…. SIGH
danbloom - July 20, 2010 at 12:27 am
I feel that the entire LA Times piece was in my opinion silly and naive. Why? Because future MRI brain scans which are being done even now at UCLA and Tufts and in Norway will indicate, as I have hunched, that reading on screens in inferior to reading on paper in terms of processing of info, retention of info and analysis of info. Until we see the MRI scan tests that people like Gary Small and Maryanne Wolf and Anne Mangen are doing, about reading versus ”screening” (my word for reading on a screen), we must proceed slowly. Stick with books and newspapers, friends. This tech train might be out of the station, as Dr Small says, but we must watch it carefully. If we go all gaga over it like teenage gadgetheads, our fate might be, drum roll, “frankenbooks”. Is that what we want? Yes, I have coined the word Frankenbooks for e-readers. We should be afraid, very afraid. Google it.
chuckkle - July 20, 2010 at 6:55 am
Hmm, too bad MRI’s were not around when movable type printing was first developed so we could learn how the human mind responded to this new-fangled form. And what about the change from parchment to paper! or from stone carving to parchment! Didn’t God want us to read things on stone? After all, Moses brought down the Commandments on stone, not on some sheep skin!And here is poor Mark Bauerlein messing up his mind by reading the LA Times, Science Daily, and Taipei Times on his computer screen! Eeck! Mark, put down your computer, destroy it! Promise you will only read things on paper from now on. I trust you have killed your TV already, now save your mind by smashing that laptop!Chuck Kleinhans
danbloom - July 20, 2010 at 8:04 am
@Chuck Kleinhans — “Hmm, too bad MRI’s were not around when movable type printing was first developed so we could learn how the human mind responded to this new-fangled form. And what about the change from parchment to paper! or from stone carving to parchment!”I see your point and I get your sarcasm. But listen, my friend, I am not saying that reading on screens is bad for us, or bad for our eyes or bad for our brains. I am just calling for MRI scan research by experts in the field to try to ascertain if or if not reading on paper lights up different parts of the brain compared to when we “read” on screens. What’s the harm in asking for this kind of learned research. It won’t derail e-readers, and that is not my mission. I merely want to ask neuroscientists to dish the facts on this. Then we can discuss calmly later. Agree? Disagree? Daniel Halevi Bloom, no PH.D, no M.A., nothing!
danbloom - July 20, 2010 at 8:09 am
here are some questions I asked myself for reader insight re my MRI ideas. Comments weclome:> 1. Using MRI’s is going to expensive. How would are the current studies> being financed?BLOOM: Yes, conducting MRI brain scan research on lab volunteers reading onpaper compared to othersreading on screens (Kindles or Nooks or iPhones or computer screens)will be expensive. But institutionslike UCLA and Harvard and Princeton and Tufts and other majoruniversities in Europe and Japan will beable to carry out this research over the next few years. Scholars likeAnne Mangen in Norway, Maryanne Wolfat Tufts, Oliver Sacks at Columbia and Gary Small at UCLA are aware ofthese issues and will likely be at the forefrontof the research. It might take 5 years, it might ten 10 years, but thestudies and academic papers will come out. I have no idea what theresearch will say. The MRI studies might show the reading on paper issuperior to reading on screens, or they mightsay the opposite. Or they might say there is no real difference. Butwe need to find out with neuroscience, not just anecdotal evidence.> 2. Why stop at ebook readers. Why not do the same MRI research with> computers? Yes yes, I am calling for this kind of MRI research with computers, too. From Kindlesto Nooks to SONY Readers to iPads to iPhones to computer screens, allscreen- reading must be testedto compare it with reading on paper.> 3. Even if there are differences shown between reading a book and reading> on an electronic device, does that really mean it is harmful or just that> its different?Good question. Let’s say that huge differences are seen betweenreading a book on papercompared to reading the same book on a screen. Will it mean anything?If the differencesare huge, it will mean something, for sure.If the differences are very slight, maybe it will notmean much. And if there are no differences, then we can all relax. Andif it turns out that screening readingis superior to paper reading, then that’s good to know too.We need to ask neuroscientists to tell us what’sgoing on. However, as Gary Small at UCLA recently told a reporter forthe Los Angeles Times: “People tend to ask whether this is good orbad,” Small said. “My response is that the tech train is out of thestation, and it’s impossible to stop.”He was referring to an earlier note that online readers oftendemonstrate what he calls “continuous partial attention” as they clickfrom one link to the next. The risk is that we become mindless antsfollowing endless crumbs of digital data, Small indicated. But hisfinal note that the teech train is already out of the station andcannot be stopped is telling.> 4. Do you have any idea when papers will be published based on these> studies?I have no idea what research is being conducted at the current time,nor do I know who is conducting the research or where.As someone with no Ph.D and no advanced academic credentials, I amusing my background as a writer and a newspaper reporter to researchthe current state of this kind of research and to call for more of it,specifically targetted at paper and screens. So far, there is not oneacademic paper published about MRI brain scan studies on this topic,but several top people in the field, who I am in contact with, havetold me that such research is imperative and that it will happensooner or later.Anne Mangen, at the University of Stavanger in Norway, has alreadypublished a paper about some of this work, but she did not use MRIscans as part of her research yet. Still, one can summarize someimportant Mangen’s research on precisely the difference between screenand print reading this way:“The process of reading on a screen involves so much physicalmanipulation of the computer that it interferes with our ability tofocus on and appreciate what we are reading;“Online text moves up and down the screen and lacks a physicaldimension, robbing us of a sense of completeness;“The visual happenings on a computer screen and our physicalinteraction with the device and its setup can be distracting.“All of these things tax human cognition and concentration in a waythat a book, newspaper or magazine does not.”> 5. Are there any preliminary results?So far none. Anne Mangen in Norway is leading the way. Maryanne Wolfat Tufts is deeply involved in this, too. Gary Smallat UCLA, and Oliver Sacks in New York, too. But so far there have nono MRI studies on this. It’s just beginnging.> 6. How likely is it that manufacturers who have heavily invested in ebook> technology will pay any attention to the findings if they are negative?Very good question. It is highly likely that they will pay noattention to whatever findings come out. If the findingsback the superiority of reading off screens, they will rejoice andhelp to publish the results. If the findings say that reading on paperand reading off screens is more or less the same, in terms of brainchemistry and reception, then they will also rejoice. But if thefindings come back that paper reading is superior to screen reading,it won’t make a difference to the e-reader industry. As a friend ofmine in the industry told me recently: “Just as dire warnings aboutcancer and radiation from excessive cellphone use have moreor less gone unheeded, the same thing will happen with the results ofthe MRI tests on paper reading versus screen reading. It’s too late todo anything about it. The reading devices are already out there in themarketplace and in the schools. I don’t think a fewwarnings will change a thing. It didn’t stop the cellphone industry.It won’t stop the e-reader makers. It’s a billion dollar industry, andit’s getting hotter every day.”> 7. Who exactly is doing these studies and why?Nobody is doing these MRI brain scan studies yet. Nobody. But thosewho will undertake such research will be reading specialists,educators and neuroscientists with nothing but academic interestinvolved. The e-reader industry could care less. They’ve already madetheir bed and they’re going to sleep in it, for the long run. Theprofits are huge. So it will be academics who get involved first,people like Anne Mangen in Norway and Maryanne Wolf at Tufts, GarySmall at UCLA. Maybe even the great Oliver Sacks. I have written toall of them and pleaded with them to start on such work.> 8. You mentioned that there were studies being conducted in Asia. Are any> other countries who are researching this?As far as I know, not one academic or medical institution in the worldis understaking MRI brain scan research on reading on paper versusreading on screens yet. It is an unexplored field, and an importantone. But future work will be done in Japan, for sure,and at the great medical universities in Europe and the USA, Canada, too.
danbloom - July 20, 2010 at 8:46 am
I’ve been in touch with Kevin Kelly this past year on these reading issues, and I once asked him what he thought about calling the act of reading on a screen, or off a screen, as some say, as “screening” — as a new word to differentiate this act from reading on paper, since the two reading modes are so different in terms of processing, retention and analysis. He wrote back to me and said “I’d be happy to see ‘screening’ used in this way.” But he himself has not started using it yet. Only me. It takes a while for new words to catch on…..One thing his very good article in Smithsonian does not mention is this: screening is vastly inferior, IMHO, to reading on paper, in terms of processing of text, retention of texy (memory and recall) and analysis (critical thinking skills), and future MRI scans will most likely prove my hunch, which nobody is talking about and which is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, that reading on paper is vastly superior for processing, retention and analysis, compared to screen-reading, but until the MRI testing begins and the academic papers on this are written and published, the media will go on blah blahing about “screening” as if it’s a good thing. It is not a good thing. It is good for email reading and blog reading and quick reads online, for speed and convenience, but screening is not reading, and even Kevin Kelly agrees with me, although he does not come out here and say it. Nobody will agree with me ”publicly” until the MRI scan results come out, and then we will know that reading on paper lights up different parts of the brain that are superior for processing, retention and analysis. Stay glued to your screens, everyone! There is more here than meets…. the eye!
chuckkle - July 20, 2010 at 11:15 am
It’s very nice that Mr. Bloom is passionate about this matter. I don’t object to research being done.But Bauerlein’s purpose here is obviously hypocritical. It’s fine that HE uses screens to read and write and disseminate, but whoa, don’t let the masses of people, or impressionable children and teens and undergrads do so, yadda yadda.What was the effect of the change from an oral to a written culture for the transmission of knowledge in the past (hint: what does Ong say, and those who commented on his ideas?) Are we moving to a post-book culture (hint: what did McLuhan say, and those who commented on his ideas?). Is that like an oral culture?Bauerlein isn’t really interested in the larger questions here but in just grinding his ideological ax to hack away at Things Which Annoy Him like young men falling behind young women in education, reading, etc.Chuck Kleinhans
luther_blissett - July 20, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Dan Bloom: Would you care to enumerate “parts of the brain that are superior for processing, retention and analysis”? And would you care to explain why two non-natural, and thus non-evolved, habits like paper reading or screen reading would *not* light up different parts of the brain? The brain is amazing in its ability to separate seemingly like behaviors, perhaps because it reduces the overall gravity of local brain traumas. In order to control for any such MRI experiment, you’d need to work with subjects who had spent equal time with page reading and screen reading. Otherwise, the different effects could merely be a result of less experience. I know I’ve only been screen reading for 20 of my 34 years — and if you exclude screen reading for word processing only, I’ve only been screen reading for 16 years. We’d also need to control for types of screen reading and types of page reading: reading a .pdf of pure text is different than reading someone’s cluttered MySpace page, and reading the Norton Anthology is different than reading a Penguin Classic. (My own unscientific experiments as a teacher suggest that students do better with photocopies of texts from well-laid-out volumes than from the Norton, which is notoriously difficult to manage physically.)
strabismot - July 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The 2002 book _The Myth of the Paperless Office_ points out that paper reflects, rather than emits, light, which means the print reader’s eyes are not taxed as much as a screen viewer’s eyes are. They didn’t have MRI studies and such, but I think they were on to something. In discussions of print v. screen, I’ve not yet seen mention of this book — have you? — but I’ve found it quite helpful in understanding the plusses and minuses of each.My concern with the growing dominance of screening over reading print-on-paper is that screening is a good method for getting the general gist of something, but a poor one for encouraging careful, sustained, deep thought. I suspect (but cannot prove) that print is better suited for the latter. While I am no conservative, reactionary, antiquarian, ax-grinder, or [your favorite comparable epithet slung here], I, too, am concerned that our capacity for deeper, reflective thought will degrade and is degrading already. It seems to me the question is, how do we support, develop, nurture, reward, etc., the deeper kinds of thinking that screening discourages? What technologies, pedagogies, methods, habits, etc., will help? Old, new, borrowed, blue, digital, analog, I don’t care — I want something that helps, not hinders or degrades, deep thought.It also seems to me that such kinds of thinking are for many people unnatural and unpleasant, so I expect it will be an uphill battle, regardless of the technological or cultural environment.
markbauerlein - July 20, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Cheap sarcasm is easy, Chuck, but the hypocrisy charge doesn’t stick. I’ve never said that people shouldn’t read/write/watch on screens. I’ve said that we must preserve forms of reading that involve lengthy and linear attention and concentration, and screen activities popular with the young work in the other direction. If a kid spends at least an hour a night reading a book or a print newspaper etc, Facebook and texting and Youtube aren’t a problem. The problem arises when screen diversion crowd out everything else.
luther_blissett - July 21, 2010 at 3:07 am
A few points:1) Re light and paper vs. screen: People used to read by candlelight, which is very bad for the eyes. If you’ve ever traveled to Europe or the UK and spent time in a castle library, you’ll see they are dark. And yet people were very capable of reading under terrible conditions. Most people today read by florescent light, which is similarly bad for the eyes. On the other hand, new e-book devices like the Kindle work with light in new and interesting ways that are less taxing than a computer monitor.2) Print newspapers do not favor sustained, linear reading. Most people skim newspaper articles. Few articles are read past the crease, few newspapers are read from start to finish, and few articles are read patiently word for word.3) I’d argue that the genre of writing is more important here than the technology. People give sustained attention to very few types of writing: art in which they are very interested and articles in which they have a deep personal or professional interest. Otherwise we skim: textbooks, opinion pieces, popular fiction, magazine articles, etc. So sure, if kids read good novels or essays every night — on-line or in print — it would be better than if they skimmed newspapers OR blogs.4) Which is to say that the better the content, the better the reading. The lady next to me on the bus last week reading Tacitus on her Kindle is engaged in far better reading practices than the guy flipping through a discarded issue of *The New Yorker* he found on his seat.
danbloom - July 21, 2010 at 8:28 am
@ chuckkle re: “It’s very nice that Mr. Bloom is passionate about this matter. I don’t object to research being done.” …Good! That’s all I am looking for, the research, and I have no idea what it will say. But let’s find out. Thanks for understanding my passion on this. It’s because I am a writer and words matter to me, and how we “read” them matters to me, too. I want to know if there’s any difference in the paper vs screen thing. Who knows? Anecdotal evidence can only go so far. We need science here.@ luther_blissett – re: “Dan Bloom: Would you care to enumerate “parts of the brain that are superior for processing, retention and analysis”? ……In order to control for any such MRI experiment, you’d need to work with subjects who had spent equal time with page reading and screen reading. ….We’d also need to control for types of screen reading and types of page reading: reading a .pdf of pure text is different than reading someone’s cluttered MySpace page, and reading the Norton Anthology is different than reading a Penguin Classic.”Good points. I don’t have any answers. And my own anecdotal evidence is not worth much. The real research is not going to be easy. PET scans or MRI scans, I don’t know. It’s up to the big guys and girls to find out how to carry out the research. I am just asking the questions.@ strabismot – re: “The 2002 book The Myth of the Paperless Office points out that paper reflects, rather than emits, light, which means the print reader’s eyes are not taxed as much as a screen viewer’s eyes are. They didn’t have MRI studies and such, but I think they were on to something. Yes, they were on to something. And yes, it’s going to be an uphill battle when the research is done and published. And as Dr Small at UCLA said, the tech train already left the station and cannot be stopped. So by the time the research is published, it won’t make much difference, even if the results say screen-reading is way inferior, brain chemistry-wise, to paper reading. It will be too to make a difference. There’s money to be made. Can’t stop the E Train now, it’s pulled out of the Amazon Station!
danbloom - July 21, 2010 at 8:31 am
Quick note to Chronicle copy editors: Understandable typo in the blog post here: “And here is a story in the Los Angeles Times on how “Electronic Reading Devices Are Transforming the Concept of a Book.” According to reporters Alex Beam and David Sarno:…”Alex Beam, of course, is the erudite newspaper columnist and book author at the Boston Globe. Alex Pham is the actual co-author of the Los Angeles Times piece with David Sarno.– db, sometimes proofreader
markbauerlein - July 21, 2010 at 9:30 am
My mistake, Dan, not the editors. Thank you for catching it.
trendisnotdestiny - July 21, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“If a kid spends at least an hour a night reading a book or a print newspaper etc, Facebook and texting and Youtube aren’t a problem. The problem arises when screen diversion crowd out everything else.”Hence, an avalanche of destraction….. agree with you here Mark!